The

petitioner

being

the

sole

accused

has

approached

this

Court

seeking

to

quash

criminal

proceedings initiated against him in C.C. No.514/2021 for

the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 505(1) of

the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) pending on the file

of the learned JMFC at Devadurga arising out of Crime

No.66/2021 of Gabbur Police Station.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the informant-

Zaheer Pasha lodged the first information against the

petitioner alleging that he is a BJP worker and close aide of

Devadurga M.L.A., Sri Shivanagouda Nayak. During Covid-

19 pandemic under the leadership of the MLA, workers

3

including the informant were helping the needy persons by

providing them with food and shelter. On 17.05.2021, a

message was forwarded in UAS Samartha Fruit Shop

whatsapp group pertaining to the service that is being

rendered with reference to the MLA. But the accused who

is the member of the same whatsapp group commented

and forwarded the message as “dodda kalla ksn”. It is

stated that even though MLA of Devadurga Vidhana Sabha

Kshetra is an important person involved in serving the

society and the general public, accused posted the above

said message defaming him in the whatsapp group.

Therefore, informant requested the police to register a

case and to initiate legal action against accused. It is

stated that after investigation charge sheet came to be

filed for the above said offences by the Investigating

Officer. It is stated that the learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the offence and now the matter is pending

before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devadurga.

4

3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-

State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the informant had no locus standi to lodge the first

information. Neither section 504 nor 505(1) of IPC are

attracted to the facts of the case. Both these offences are

non-cognizable offences and no permission as required

under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C., was obtained for

proceeding with the investigation. Therefore, registration

of the FIR, investigation, filing of the complaint, taking of

cognizance and launching of criminal proceedings is bad

under law. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition

and quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the

petitioner.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent submitted that during pandemic

such whatsapp message was forwarded defaming the local

MLA

and

therefore,

investigation

was

undertaken.

5

However, he conceded to the fact that both offences are

non-cognizable in nature.

6.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the criminal case registered

against the petitioner is liable to be

quashed invoking inherent power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for

the following:

R E A S O N S

7.

The informant lodged the first information

against the accused alleging that accused had posted a

message as stated above in the whatsapp group defaming

the local MLA. Section 499 of IPC is not invoked. On the

other hand, sections 504 and 505(1) of IPC were invoked.

But the facts and circumstances of the case do not attract

any of these provisions. Even otherwise, admittedly, both

these provisions are non-cognizable in nature.

6

8.

When information regarding commission of a

non-cognizable offence is received, the procedure for

proceedings is provided under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. It is

mandatory to refer the informant to the Magistrate

concerned. Sub-section 2 of section 155 of Cr.P.C.,

mandates

the

police

officer

not

to

proceed

with

investigation of a non-cognizable case without the order of

the Magistrate. Admittedly, no such procedure is followed

in the present case. Inspite of that investigation is

completed and charge sheet is filed. Unfortunately, the

learned Magistrate has proceeded